Re: procmail limitations (was: Re: Accepted kde-icons-crystalclear 0.0.20050623.dfsg.1-1 (source all))
'lo, On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 10:43:45AM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote: > Frans Pop wrote: > > Please do _not_ use a mail@ or root@ or daemon@ address to send mail to > > debian addresses. They will be filtered out as such addresses are > > considered to be reserved for administrative and system accounts. > > > > I've attached 2 mails that were filtered out because of this today. > > Isn't this rather a limitation of the software used or a > misconfiguration? I'm not very experienced with the problem but reading > the manpage, I think the filter is a bit too simple. Why filter eg every > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail instead of only *relevant* mails like [EMAIL PROTECTED] We regard it as a configuration ;-). There are too many servers out there sending bounces without an empty return path. Using the FROM_DAEMON check means that we only let through a few bounces, rather than a whole lot of them. > > > > > See also man procmailrc(5), under MISCELLANEOUS. > > Done. But please be aware that this problem also applies to our users > using the BTS. Every time they use one of the problematic mails, they > get an error message -- I think you cannot expect our users to > subordinate to those limitations, could you? > > I'll change the mail address for debian purposes as soon as possible, > but please consider that most users will not, so the problem should be > fixed on the server-side. The last time I looked into this (although I do admit it was a while ago), there were still a large number of boune messages that looked liked this. I can't forsee this having changed. Pasc (with his non-razor-bladed listmaster hat on) -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spam on this list
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 09:03:26PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote: > What about using the msgid instead of the id so it would be > possible to use your MUA to mark a mail as spam via a script > which can be executed and calls the spam-report.pl script > just like sa-learn or something like this? > So it would be possible to mark mails as spam without going > to the website of the archive. What happens if someone fakes a message-id? Pasc -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Czech translation of po-debconf templates completed
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:40:45AM +0200, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2005, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > > [1] http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/po-debconf/pot > > > [2] http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/po-debconf/rank > > > > speacking of [2] and french : > > > > pt_BR 5745 (55%) > > portugais, tel qu'on le parle en Brésil > > > > this translation is awful .. I don't know who to bug for this, so I cc > > this to debian-l10n-french. > > > > the right translation is 'au Brésil' not 'en Brésil' > > See french/po/l10n.fr.po[1] and english/po/l10n.pot on the webwml CVS, > and you'll see that it is not our translation for "as spoken in Brazil" > but our translation for "as spoken in" and for "Brazil". > > I don't know how to fix it, maybe creating a po file with the > translation of "in Brazil", "in France", "in Comores", ... but thus > duplicating many entries. > > Maybe filing a bug against www.debian.org could be an idea? > And while we're at it: zh_CN 1971 (19%) Chinese, as spoken in China and zh_TW 1905 (18%) Chinese, as spoken in Taiwan is kind of strange as well. Cheers, Pasc -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The BTS and bug subscriptions
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 00:33 +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > >> As in once you confirmed one subscription the next one doesn't ask > >> anymore? Sort of greylisting? > >> > >> Sounds good. > > > > It should always ask for confirmation unless someone has specifically > > made the decision that they don't want to have to opt-in. > > Maybe it should honour subscription requests without confirmation if request > is GPG-signed by the key with uid equal to address being subscribed. > I'm afraid this doesn't give us much. It's trivial to add uids to a GPG key, and headers aren't actually signed anyway, so you could replay signed messages to the server. Cheers, Pasc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The BTS and bug subscriptions
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 06:25 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > [Don Armstrong] > > What has actually been discussed is automatically subscribing > > submitters to the bug report unless some special header/pseudo-header > > is added to prevent that. > > Sounds good. But since this information was already tracked, I figured > there must have been a (good?) reason this hasn't been done in the > past. Not that I can think of one. The discussions we had on the topic at Debconf revolved around whether someone who submits a bug wants to know the technical discussions relating to the bug fix, whether we should send it to them, and how do we make sure they get a copy if the maintainer needs to ask the bug submitter for more information. Cheers, Pasc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The BTS and bug subscriptions
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 15:30 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > Now ... how hard would it be to add 'submit-subscribe@' support? > > Most of the time, when I submit a bug report, I'd like to subscribe > > to it. Would this be a straightforward hack? > > What has actually been discussed is automatically subscribing > submitters to the bug report unless some special header/pseudo-header > is added to prevent that. [It's possible that this subscription would > happen without even needing to confirm the subscription... but that's > still undecided.] As an update to this, AJ has posted a note on the stuff he'd like to see in the BTS[1]. This really relates to his point 4 relating to the refactoring of the mail distribution. Expect more on the subject in the upcoming future. Pasc [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-debbugs/2005/07/msg00089.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please participate in popularity-contest
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 04:43:32PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 7/25/05, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Or even better, make sure d-i installs anacron for desktop systems.
>
> What's the disadvantage of anacron compared to cron (or: Why not
> always install it instead of cron)?
>
Anacron isn't actually a daemon. It's run by cron once a day, and on
startup/apm-resume.
The main 'disadvantage' of anacron, is that it's set up by default to
only run /etc/cron.{daily,weekly,monthly}. It won't take care of running
normal cron jobs that would have been scheduled to run otherwise, and
didn't run because the computer wasn't on.
Cheers,
Pasc (with his "I'm the anacron maintainer" hat on)
--
Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672
Do Not Bend
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please participate in popularity-contest
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:53:46AM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote: > On 7/25/05, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Perhaps some of the reports got lost in the mail? > > > Or because many machines are not turned on that early in the morning. > > apt-get install anacron > > Heh, this doesn't solve the problem that most desktop systems aren't > turned on at that time, because most desktop users won't read this > mail, and therefore won't install anacron. > > A better solution (from my point of view, of course), would be to > change the popcon crontab's entry, so that it runs at a time when most > computers are turned on (this is difficult to guess, of course, but > maybe 15:00 ?). After all, it's not a cpu-intensive, or other > resource-intensive task, and can run at any other moment. > 'lo, Running anacron (or fcron or whatever) will make sure you run all of cron.daily however. This is more useful than just running popcon. If your computer is turned off, you'll be missing things like log rotation and your locate database, as well as all your man pages stuff. Cheers, Pasc -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The BTS and bug subscriptions
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 10:37:02PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 06:11:14PM +1000, Pascal Hakim wrote:
> >>
> >> It is now possible to subscribe and unsubscribe from individual bugs in
> >> the Bug Tracking System. To do so, simply send an email to
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], or [EMAIL PROTECTED], where
> >> nnn is the bug number you wish to {,un}subscribe to. You will then need to
> >> reply to the confirmation email for the action to take effect.
> >
> > I would like that I don't have to confirm each time I subscribe
> > to a bug. Could there be some list added so that you don't need
> > to confirm your subscription?
> >
> >
> > Kurt
>
> As in once you confirmed one subscription the next one doesn't ask
> anymore? Sort of greylisting?
>
> Sounds good.
It should always ask for confirmation unless someone has specifically
made the decision that they don't want to have to opt-in.
Cheers,
Pasc
--
Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672
Do Not Bend
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#38116: about voting for bugs
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:35:40AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Martin Samuelsson [Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:01:04 +0200]: > > > Adeodato Simó @ 2005-07-20 (Wednesday), 13:30 (+0200) > > > Debian Bug Subscription Feature, by Joachim Breitner: > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/07/msg00490.html > > > I'm quoting that mail to feed it to the bug report regarding the issue. > > Well, this has gone "official" now: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/07/msg00014.html > It's not the same system, but it's a similar idea. Joachim was strongly involved in getting that to work. Cheers, Pasc -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reopening bug closed due to SPAM
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:25:09AM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > > The only reason it is easy for spammers to close a bug is that the bug > > has been already closed before (and reopened again) and the spammers > > have harvested the -done address for that bug from the web pages. > A very valid point... I took the task more general - to infiltrate bug > reports (and may be give ideas for even mailing lists) from SPAM. > crawlers get all [EMAIL PROTECTED] emails and then bug reports get spammed as > well as the relevant dudes. > > BTW - why it has to be "iff" scheme - why it can't be a pipeline > > if signed with a valid GPG signature -- permit > else > if spamassassin gives negative score -- permit > else > send a verification letter > > Indeed - it is more load on the server but 1st step doesn't require much > of load, mostly waiting time for the transaction. We would get to > spamassassin quite rarely if most of people (and DD) start signing their > submissions, and 3rd one will hit with probably 1% false positives... > Sending verification letters like that is a rather bad idea. We're talking in the 10,000 to 100,000 verification emails a day here. Pasc -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: OT: No unsubscribe signature?
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 01:08:33PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Pascal Hakim wrote: > > Placing a footer in list traffic is a compromise between modifying > > messages as little as possible and trying to help people find a way > > to get their questions answered. > > A bad compromise, I would say. The footer is harmful for a number of > reasons (for example, it ends up being quoted over and over again > in some threads, and we already have RFC-compliant headers for that). > Those who know how to unsubscribe should not pay the price for those > who don't know. > Would you rather that every one of those people email the list asking what steps they have to take to get off? Realistically, I believe the benefits of having it there outweigh the negatives. While I understand that you don't agree with me, blindly repeating your arguments will not change my mind. If you care that deeply about it, you can either find someone else who'll listen to you, find some new arguments, or take it up to the tech committee. Cheers, Pasc -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: No unsubscribe signature?
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:09:17AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Pascal Hakim wrote: > > Ron Johnson wrote: > > > I wonder what it's rule set is. > > > > :0 fbw > > * ! ^Content-Transfer-Encoding:.*base64 > > * ! ^Content-Transfer-Encoding:.*quoted-printable > > | cat - footer.txt > > The "Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" message > asked about was encoded with a content transfer encoding of > quoted-printable. Therefore the rule above avoided attaching a footer > to the message. This explains the question about the anomaly. > > I guess if you don't want a footer on your messages you can always > send them out with a quoted-printable encoding. :-) > > Of course base64 works too, but that is a strong spam sign and your > message might get dropped by people scoring based upon that so I would > recommend against using base64 encoding for plain text messages. > In my experience as a listmaster, the people who like to complain about the fact that we add a signature on the bottom of every email, will usually find a number of other things they dislike. Placing a footer in list traffic is a compromise between modifying messages as little as possible and trying to help people find a way to get their questions answered. Cheers, Pasc -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: OT: No unsubscribe signature?
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:33:27AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 01:25 +1000, Pascal Hakim wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 05:23:58PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:18:16AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:14:33AM -0400, Josh Metzler wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> without the usual signature describing how > > > >>> to unsubscribe from debian-devel. Was this the case for everyone, or > > > >>> is > > > >>> there something between the debian servers and my mail client that > > > >>> occasionally (but very rarely) strips signatures? > > > > > > > I see it at the end of your email: > > > > > > > The way it was explained to me on the Evolution ML is that the > > > > "disappearing unsub message" only happens only happens to emails > > > > that have attachments. For example, digital signatures. The > > > > ML manager blindly tacks the unsub text to the end of the email, > > > > and the MUA doesn't "see" it, because it only knows to process > > > > the attachments (text/plain & application/pgp-signature being 99.99% > > > > of the attachments to emails on this list). > > > > > > > View the raw source of such a "disappearing unsub message" email, > > > > and you will see that the text is there. > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > > It doesn't include it in some cases where it knows it won't show. > > I wonder what it's rule set is. > :0 fbw * ! ^Content-Transfer-Encoding:.*base64 * ! ^Content-Transfer-Encoding:.*quoted-printable | cat - footer.txt realistically, we should be checking if it's a multipart message and adding a block if this is the case. Pasc -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: OT: No unsubscribe signature?
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 05:23:58PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:18:16AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:14:33AM -0400, Josh Metzler wrote: > > > >>> without the usual signature describing how > >>> to unsubscribe from debian-devel. Was this the case for everyone, or is > >>> there something between the debian servers and my mail client that > >>> occasionally (but very rarely) strips signatures? > > > I see it at the end of your email: > > > The way it was explained to me on the Evolution ML is that the > > "disappearing unsub message" only happens only happens to emails > > that have attachments. For example, digital signatures. The > > ML manager blindly tacks the unsub text to the end of the email, > > and the MUA doesn't "see" it, because it only knows to process > > the attachments (text/plain & application/pgp-signature being 99.99% > > of the attachments to emails on this list). > > > View the raw source of such a "disappearing unsub message" email, > > and you will see that the text is there. > > Nope. > It doesn't include it in some cases where it knows it won't show. Cheers, Pasc -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reduce the amount of spam for @debian.org (Was: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please)
gmail.com used to do that to lists.debian.org. We deliver ~300,000 emails to gmail a day. It resulted in some deliveries timing out before they were even attempted; I'll let you imagine the rest. Cheers, Pasc On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 08:35 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Santiago Vila] > > For example, we could use greylisting. Or we could reject messages that > > are known to come directly from trojanized windows machines acting as > > open proxies. Or even better, we could do both things. > > Or a completely different option. Here at the university the > postmasters implemented a system to delay delivery based on blacklist > entries. The delaying is done during the first connect, and does not > require the MTA in the other end to reconnect, like greylisting. The > idea is simple: > > - Keep/use a list of good and not soo good blacklists for MTA hosts. > > - If the other side is listed in one of this blacklists, act as a >_very_ slow SMTP server. The initial hello reply is delayed 1-2 >minutes in this case, and if the client try to send anything in >this period, the connection is dropped. The SMTP protocol specifies >that the client should not send anything before receiving the intro >line from the other end, so this is safe to do. > > - This reduced the amount of spam with more than 90 percent, I've >been told. The current spam software do not seem to have time to >wait for a reply, or give up the delivery after a few seconds >without any reply. In either case, all standard-compliant MTAs are >able to get their mails through, even if they are listed in a >blacklist. > > - MTAs not listed in a blacklist is passed throught without any >delays. > > Could this be an idea for Debian as well? > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:45 +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What's painful about it? > > > > It stops a lot of viruses and spam, with no false positives. What's the > > problem? > > "No false positives" seems a bit optimistic. > > One problem I've encountered in the past is big mail providers (like > yahoo) who will send retries from _different_ servers, which sometimes > don't even have a DNS entry (maybge it's just DNS propagation delay, I > don't know). > > How do greylisting services determine that a message is being resent > (and so should be accepted this time)? If it's by hostname or host > address, this would sometimes fail with systems like the above. > I've had pretty good luck by matching by /24. The mail servers will usually be within that range. This has worked for the mail I host in terms of receiving from yahoo, ebay, hotmail, etc, etc Realistically, it's not a solution to spam, but it does at least cut down on what you get a fair bit. Pasc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:41 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Wouter Verhelst: > > > What's painful about it? > > I wouldn't be surprised if it already increases load on > lists.debian.org significantly. > > Not nearly as much as people who teergrub us. We can _really_ feel them. Cheers, Pasc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 15:09 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Le Jeu 16 Juin 2005 14:33, Santiago Vila a écrit : > > Now that we have released sarge, I would like to ask debian-admin and > > the Project Leader to consider seriously doing something to reduce > > the level of spam we have to receive, store, and filter in our > > @debian.org addresses. > > > > For example, we could use greylisting. Or we could reject messages > > that are known to come directly from trojanized windows machines > > acting as open proxies. Or even better, we could do both things. > > I fully disagree, greylisting is really painful, and I really hope this > would never be used as a default rule for email filtering. > > I'd prefer to see some tools like dspam/bogofilter/... used instead of > the heavy and not efficient enought SA. There's no reason why we can't have different settings for different accounts based on what people prefer, whether this includes blacklists, greylisting or various combinations of spam filters. Cheers, Pasc
Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:50:43AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:39:30AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g., > > > buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipulate source > > > packages with the tools in stable. Note, I said "manipulate", not > > > "build". > > > > > Why can't you just install the unstable ones? > > Because we don't run unstable on our project machines for a reason? > That's right. We use backports.org. Cheers, Pasc -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#264069: PHP/WebApp policy/mailing list
I've just created the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. You can subscribe from http://lists.debian.org/debian-webapps/ Cheers, Pasc On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 13:50 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 10:21:30AM +0200, Alexis Sukrieh wrote: > > It really seems that such a list is needed, a lot of webapp maintainers > > would be happy to have a common place to talk about that. > > Definitely. > > > Here is the name that sounds to be the good one, according to this thread: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Seconded. Fwiw, I don't see this as a temporary list, webapplications > are *growing* in use, and there's a lot of trickyness involved that > isn't well document/standard at all compared to a regular package with > some data files, libraries and a few binaries. > > > We have to find a correct description for the list, let me give you a > > first try: > > > > Coordination for web application maintenance and Debian Webapp > > Policy issues. > > Coordination and discussion for web application packaging. > > I wouldn't even mention the policy in the description, it's of course > part of it, but not the main focus IMHO -> it's just a logical > conclusion that this discussion should be on debian-webapps then. > > --Jeroen > > -- > Jeroen van Wolffelaar > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) > http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PHP/WebApp policy/mailing list
On Sun, 2005-05-01 at 12:08 +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 11:56:47AM +0200, Alexis Sukrieh wrote: > > Pascal Hakim wrote: > > >Speaking as a listmaster, I believe that a list that would be used to > > >provide people with a place to discuss the packaging of web-apps, as > > >well as standard things associated with it is a great idea. It's better > > >than debian-apache (after all, there's other web servers out there), and > > >it's better than creating a debian-php list. We want this to be used by > > >all web-apps, whether they be in php, python, perl or whatever the > > >flavour of the week is. > > > > Ok. > > It seems that everyone here agrees on the fact that such a list would be > > helpful and could enhance the way webapp packages are made. > > > > I find Frankie's suggestion interesting and would vote for an Alioth > > account for hosting the mailinglist. Moreover, if we want to start > > writing a "Debian Webapp Policy Manual", alioth is a good idea too, I > > suppose. > > > > First of all we have to find a correct name for such a project. I was > > thinking at something generic like "webapp-policy" but other ideas are > > welcome. > > > > I think a suitable section in debian policy would be appropriate. And > mere technical discussions about the policy contents are also > appropriate in d-policy. All other technical discussions should go > in an alioth list. My suggestion of an alioth list is due to Do the policy discussion on the new list, and make a new debian web apps sub policy, in the same way we have perl and emacs policies. Leave the main debian policy out of it, until we have something that works, and is used by most web apps. This is how the system is meant to work. > current discouraging (and long delays) for a new proper list on > lists.debian.org. If interested people would think a l.d.o list > is better, that could also be nice. Once you've got me convinced the list is a good idea, it usually doesn't take too long to create it. Cheers, Pasc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PHP/WebApp policy/mailing list
On Sun, 2005-05-01 at 14:28 +0200, Alexis Sukrieh wrote: > Jeroen van Wolffelaar a Ãcrit : > > I'm strongly in favour of a lists.debian.org, and I'm sure it'll be > > created swiftly when we choose a sane name for it. > > If possible, I also think that a lists.debian.org is better, and will > underline the fact that a real coordination is needed around webapp > packages. > > So let's find a name, here are some ideas I have "on the fly", feel free > to comment on it: > > - [EMAIL PROTECTED] That works for me. > - debian-www@lists.debian.org err... you're kidding right? > - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not too keen on a packages list. I don't want such a list to become a maintainer for anything (short of maybe a web app policy) > - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I find that one too confusing. Cheers, Pasc
Re: PHP/WebApp policy/mailing list
On Sun, 2005-05-01 at 10:14 +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 07:28:48PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > I've lurked for a while in [EMAIL PROTECTED] hoping that that would > > be the right place for such discussions, and, when they happen, the > > subscribers are usually pretty clued-in and interested. Perhaps it is > > the natural place to discuss web-apps? At least until traffic is > > sufficient that the Debian Apache team kicks us out. It ensures we are > > 'in touch' with the httpd maintainers, instead of being in an echo > > chamber. > > > > I would create an alioth list (and project) and point interested people there, > also communicating that on -devel-announce as appropriate... Speaking as a listmaster, I believe that a list that would be used to provide people with a place to discuss the packaging of web-apps, as well as standard things associated with it is a great idea. It's better than debian-apache (after all, there's other web servers out there), and it's better than creating a debian-php list. We want this to be used by all web-apps, whether they be in php, python, perl or whatever the flavour of the week is. Cheers, Pasc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Publicly available mbox archives of debian mailing lists + Bug#161440
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 10:26 +0200, Martin Mewes wrote: > Hello, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : > > > It would be really handy to have archives of the debian mailing lists > > available as mbox archives. > > http://mbox.mewes.tv/ exists :-) > Heh. Nice work. You might want to obscure those a little bit. You should probably munge the Return-Path from those emails, and possibly the top Received: header. Cheers, Pasc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Publicly available mbox archives of debian mailing lists + Bug#161440
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 15:09 +1000, Pascal Hakim wrote: > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 23:55 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [Pascal Hakim] > > > The reason it hasn't been done so far is not related to any technical > > > problem. There seems to be just as many people who do not want the > > > mboxes to be available as people who do. > > > > Do these same people object to web archives of the lists? I'm curious, > > Some do. I've just read this again, after it was pointed out to me on IRC. That was not quite what I meant to say. (A retraction! I should be a politician!) I read in Peter's email what I wanted to read, rather than what he had actually written. I do not believe there's anyone who does not want any web archives of the lists; no one has seriously suggested that to me. On the other hand, there are a number of people who want lists.debian.org to provide only mangled web archives. Whether this includes mangled headers or email addresses, or simply missing messages depends on the request. Pasc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Publicly available mbox archives of debian mailing lists + Bug#161440
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 03:03 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:09:37PM +1000, Pascal Hakim wrote: > > > retained by an mbox but not exposed to the web don't seem all that > > > objectionable, especially since the web archives don't munge email > > > addresses. > > > > They might one day. It's possible to restrict http://lists.debian.org to > > stop or slow down people leeching across the web archives. > > The day Debian maims its archives in such a way will be a sad day, indeed ... Why? > > > > I suppose it'd be necessary for the exported mboxes to honor the > > > No-External-Archive: yes and so forth, which might not be the case > > > today (I've never gained access to them so I don't know). > > > > I actually have no idea whether we honour that already or not. > > As Branden put it[1], "Debian's mailing lists are its nervous system, and our > list archives our collective memory." I'd hope that such a header as > "No-External-Archive" would never be honored (except perhaps to bounce > the message--the only acceptable way to not be archived is to not post). Do you believe such an attitude is helpful when, for example, we ask people to post on [EMAIL PROTECTED] with their D-I test results? I would say that a number of the people who do post their results are not aware of what they are getting themselves into. Pasc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Publicly available mbox archives of debian mailing lists + Bug#161440
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 23:55 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > [Pascal Hakim] > > The reason it hasn't been done so far is not related to any technical > > problem. There seems to be just as many people who do not want the > > mboxes to be available as people who do. > > Do these same people object to web archives of the lists? I'm curious, Some do. > because I don't really see a qualitative difference. The headers It's easier to script through mboxes than through web archives. > retained by an mbox but not exposed to the web don't seem all that > objectionable, especially since the web archives don't munge email > addresses. They might one day. It's possible to restrict http://lists.debian.org to stop or slow down people leeching across the web archives. > I suppose it'd be necessary for the exported mboxes to honor the > No-External-Archive: yes and so forth, which might not be the case > today (I've never gained access to them so I don't know). > I actually have no idea whether we honour that already or not. Pasc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Publicly available mbox archives of debian mailing lists + Bug#161440
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 23:20 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > It would be really handy to have archives of the debian mailing lists > > available as mbox archives. > > The correct solution, until someone gets around to exporting the > mboxes, is to talk/grumble/whine about wanting the archive for some > specific month and list, where developers can hear you. (IRC works, a > mailing list might work.) Eventually someone will scp the relevant > file and send it to you in some way, or give you shell access to a box > with the archives so you can run a MUA right there. This might not be > official procedure, but I've seen it work more than once. I rather > doubt it would work for debian-private. The reason it hasn't been done so far is not related to any technical problem. There seems to be just as many people who do not want the mboxes to be available as people who do. Since most of the list archive team does seem to care a huge amount about that topic, nothing has been done. Cheers, Pasc (with his listarchives maintainer hat on) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dehs will stop
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 03:32 +0100, Bluefuture wrote: > > I'm not a debian developer, so i could not post on dda mailing list. I > had opened many thread over this months on debian-qa debian-devel about > dehs issues. The only reply are: > If you're not a developer and you want to post on d-d-a, you need to find a sponsor just like with packages. As long as the message is signed by someone in the keyring, it should go through. Cheers, Pasc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#294491: RFA: povray -- Persistence of vision raytracer
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 13:35 +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > ClÃment Stenac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm interested in maintainership of PovRay. > > > > I'm going to try to update the package to the latest upstream version > > and to work on some of the bugs > > That would be cool. At least one of the povray maintainers has a > giant stick up his butt about Debian, something along the lines of > "The version of povray in Debian stable is old, so DEBIAN SUX0RS IN > EVERY IMAGINABLE WAY!@&* YARGH#(*!!! LOL!" Would this be the same povray that's not in Debian? Pasc
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:55:54PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > Pfft, constitution. Like that'll ever hold up in court. Maybe they could put it in the preamble? Pasc -- Pascal Hakim Do Not Bend signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian-private list archives
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 06:50:44AM +0100, Martin Godisch wrote: > Hi, > > Who can tell me, where the debian-private list archives can be found? > Looks like they moved somewhere... > master:/home/debian/archive/debian-private/ Pasc -- Pascal Hakim 0403 411 672 Do Not Bend
Re: Release-critical Bugreport for May 14, 2004
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:52:34PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Cord Beermann:
>
> > I added a temporary(?) fix, and bounced the latest report to the list.
>
> Thanks, but it ended up in the archive (under the URL
> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/10/msg00010.html>),
> but not in the inboxes of subscribers.
>
There appears to be a large delay in the queue at the moment. There are
a couple of mail domains/ISPs causing us some issues, so expect to
receive mail late.
For example, that message made it in 30 hours later or so.
Cheers,
Pasc
--
Pascal Hakim +61 4 0341 1672
Do Not Bend
Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 08:00:07AM -0600, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: > > Right, just take Eray as an example (and note that the NM committee > > agreed 100% with the DAM's decision; yet the DAM got all the blame). > > Indeed you're right. To me we sohuld make things more open. Let's make > da-manager a mailing list (debian-dam?) with archive, so that evrything may be > read openly by anyone and things get commented by themselves[1]. The same > should be for ftpmaster: indeed we have debian-www, why not debian-ftp? A da-manager list would be a very bad idea. We do not want people's rejection from Debian to be archived in a public list which anyone can see. Imagine if searching for your name in google had "Luca De Vitis is unsuitable to join debian due to ..." as its first hit? If people who have been rejected want to bring the reasons why they have been rejected in a public forum, then it should be their choice, not Debian's. Having others as open lists might be interesting as well, at least from the aspect of letting people interested in helping figuring out what's going on. Cheers, Pasc
Re: NM non-process
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:28:15PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Why does a non-DD need to find > > a DD to sign and forward the mail to dda? Why cant he sign it himself > > and post it to the list? The message has to be approved by the moderator > > anyway. > > Mail to debian-devel-announce is (usually[0]) approved or rejected by a > script which checks signatures against the debian keyring, not by a > human moderator. > > [0] With samosa dead, I'm not sure what is currently happening > Samosa is not used for signature checking, it's only used for checking group membership. Murphy (lists.debian.org) has its own copy of the keyring, which it uses to check signatures on the -announce lists. Cheers, Pasc pgpn3GVxwTOFv.pgp Description: PGP signature
